The Truth About Pearl Harbor

I honor the memory of the millions of lives that were lost as a result of Pearl Harbor by acknowledging and learning from the truth.

FDR wanted the U.S. to join the war in Europe. He wanted war with Japan because it would be the "back door" to the war in Europe.

Japan wanted peace with the United States.

Knowing that most Americans were non-interventionist and would never support going to war unprovoked, FDR intentionally provoked Japan into attacking us and withheld knowledge of their intentions from military commanders in the Pacific so that it would look like a surprise in order to gain support from the American people.

I honor the memory of the millions of lives that were lost as a result of Pearl Harbor by acknowledging and learning from the truth.

FDR wanted the U.S. to join the war in Europe. He wanted war with Japan because it would be the "back door" to the war in Europe.

Japan wanted peace with the United States.

Knowing that most Americans were non-interventionist and would never support going to war unprovoked, FDR intentionally provoked Japan into attacking us and withheld knowledge of their intentions from military commanders in the Pacific so that it would look like a surprise in order to gain support from the American people.

I honor the memory of the millions of lives that were lost as a result of Pearl Harbor by acknowledging and learning from the truth.

FDR wanted the U.S. to join the war in Europe. He wanted war with Japan because it would be the "back door" to the war in Europe.

Japan wanted peace with the United States.

Knowing that most Americans were non-interventionist and would never support going to war unprovoked, FDR intentionally provoked Japan into attacking us and withheld knowledge of their intentions from military commanders in the Pacific so that it would look like a surprise in order to gain support from the American people.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. See, this is where a well established track record lacking logic and reasoning actually does bleed over into other domains.

Yes, yes, yes BR! Thank you for illustrating your complete lack of ability to refrain from baseless personal attacks. We need to name an award after you or something. You simply cannot merely disagree with someone. You cannot even stop at calling someone "nuts" or the like in the heat of the debate. No, no. Stating that you think jazz's evidence is underwhelming is not enough. You must attack his critical thinking skills! You must attack his ability to reason itself! After all, you clearly have knowledge of these things based on your vast amount of data collected via postings on an internet message board.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Over the years, especially in writing for the general public, as opposed to my professional peers, I have been struck repeatedly by the frequency with which certain conclusions or even entire classes of conclusions elicit not merely skepticism, but angry denunciation. Again and again, I have been called a fool, a traitor, or an America-hater because of my commentaries on history and public affairs. Although I take no pleasure in these denunciations, I find myself not so much depressed by them as curious about them. I wonder why people react as they do, especially when my commentary rests—as I hope it generally does—on well-documented facts and correct logic.

I surely do not consider myself immune to errors, of course. But if my facts are incorrect, the critic has an obligation to say why my facts are incorrect and to state, or at least to point toward, the correct facts. If my logic has run off the rails, the critic has an obligation to state how I fell into fallacious reasoning. More often than not, however, the critic resorts immediately to name-calling and to wild characterizations of my statements and my person. Thus, I have often been called a socialist, a Marxist, a conservative, an apologist for corporations or the rich, a (modern left) liberal, or something else that by no stretch of the imagination properly describes me or my intellectual or ideological position.

Certain topics are virtually guaranteed to elicit such reactions. When I write about the welfare state and especially about government programs ostensibly aimed at helping the least-well-off*members of*society, I confidently expect that critics will assail me as a fascist or as an ivory-tower dweller who has no understanding of how poor people really live and no compassion for them. When I write about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in relation to U.S. economic warfare in 1939-41, I invariably attract angry personal abuse from people of delicate nationalistic sensibilities, from those chronically on the look-out for traitors, and from those who cannot imagine that the nation’s leaders, in general, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in particular, might have deliberately provoked a Japanese attack or refrained from warning U.S. commanders in Hawaii that an attack was coming.

When people are offended or otherwise greatly displeased by historical analysis, they often employ the term “historical revisionism” as a synonym for falsified, distorted, or doctored accounts that fly in the face of what they, their history teachers, and perhaps even the most respected university historians believe to have been the case.

The irony of such use of the term “historical revision,” which makes it practically a swear word, is that revisionism is and always has been an integral part of historical research and writing. As a rule, professional historians do not seek simply to pile up more and more evidence for what historians already generally believe. Historians who proceed in this way cannot expect to make much of a name for themselves. Instead, historians try to find new evidence and new ways of interpreting old evidence that change the currently accepted view. That is, they seek to revise the current orthodoxy. In doing so, they need not be ideological mavericks, although those who are may have an additional reason for their revisionist efforts. In short, revisionism is an unremarkable aspect of workaday historical research and writing. Why then do so many readers go ballistic about it?

One reason why revisionists are sometimes seen as subversives stems from the tendency of historians in general to accept the most fundamental aspects of their own society as right and desirable. So, however much political historians may dispute the details of particular campaigns, elections, and policy-making by elected officials—and such disputation runs rampant, to be sure—one hardly expects these historians to conclude that the democratic process itself is little more than a snare and a delusion, a vast apparatus for fooling the masses into believing that they have genuine control over how they are ruled. And however much military and foreign-policy historians may argue with one another about how various wars were entered into and conducted, one hardly expects these historians to conclude that wars almost invariably hurt the mass of the people and benefit, if anyone at all, only the national leadership, its supporting elite, and a ragtag band of hangers-on (which includes, we might note, the “court historians”).

When a historian strays outside the 40-yard lines within which the bulk of the historical writing and teaching takes place, however, he is likely to be met with the dreaded accusation that he is not an honest, competent, or “respected” historian, but a revisionist—a writer who seeks to propagate socially destructive and utterly unfounded ideas in order to rend the fabric of national unity and undermine the nation’s virtues. Thus, one who challenges the standard account of Pearl Harbor can expect not simply to be disbelieved, but also to be personally condemned and vilified. Readers will say that he dishonors the brave men who gave their lives to preserve our freedoms, and so forth. Many people possess a loaded ideological gun with a hair trigger, and the slightest shake suffices to cause them to fire away. Moreover, they shoot first and reserve their fact-checking and more careful thought for later, if indeed they ever reach that stage.

One is tempted to suspect that such quick-draw reactions reveal an underlying lack of confidence in their own beliefs. If my views are so manifestly stupid and anti-social, why respond to them at all? Is it not more sensible to ignore them than to spend time in lavishing calumny on their author? In the age of the Internet, however, many people seem to get their kicks by denouncing and insulting anyone who offends their own sensibilities and their own cherished beliefs. Anyone who seeks examples of ad hominem arguments may easily collect them by the thousands and perhaps by the millions at the websites that feature news and commentary on public affairs. Every other species of logical fallacy may be found there in abundance as well, but my guess is that the ad hominem fallacy occurs more often than any other. Moreover, few people—even seemingly well-educated people—seem to be able to stay on point. So if a revisionist’s argument cannot be refuted, his critics freely set up and knock down straw men that they represent as the offender himself. Careful reading is not the most notable activity of those who engage in such flailing away. Many attackers do not even complete their reading, but begin their assault on an author immediately, after having read only a few sentences or paragraphs, as they sometimes admit.

Well, nobody ever promised the revisionist a bed of roses, especially if he challenges ideas that are widely accepted and valued. Americans want to believe that their nation is the greatest that ever was, that they themselves are better than other people in almost every way, including morally. They want to believe that at least some of their government leaders were virtuous and heroic, that their soldiers sacrificed more nobly than the enemy’s did, that their country is the last, best hope of humanity, blah, blah, blah. Much of this catalogue of taken-for-granted outlooks and beliefs is ludicrous, but woe unto the writer who laughs out loud at it. “Revisionist, revisionist!” the mobs will cry, expressing the demand that he “get out of the country” and the hope that every species of bad luck and personal misfortune will befall him. If I were one of those social psychologists who enjoy labeling any ideological trait they dislike as a form of mental illness, I might declare that the hair-trigger enemies of historical revisionism are a gaggle of sickos.

There doesn't seem to be a direct provocation to attack Pearl Harbor. Closest the link above mentions is:

At a Nov. 25 meeting of FDRs war council, Secretary of War Henry Stimsons notes speak of the prevailing consensus: The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.

The link says there was rejection of peace discussions apparently but no (sorry for the cliche) "smoking gun" to show FDR invited a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I honor the memory of the millions of lives that were lost as a result of Pearl Harbor by acknowledging and learning from the truth.

FDR wanted the U.S. to join the war in Europe. He wanted war with Japan because it would be the "back door" to the war in Europe.

Japan wanted peace with the United States.

Knowing that most Americans were non-interventionist and would never support going to war unprovoked, FDR intentionally provoked Japan into attacking us and withheld knowledge of their intentions from military commanders in the Pacific so that it would look like a surprise in order to gain support from the American people.

I think you also need to look further into the economic warfare we engaged in against Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor. We put an economic stranglehold on them knowing full well they would eventually try to break it by going to war rather than submitting to our will and being dishonored.

Also, American cryptographers had already broken the Japanese naval code and knew in advance that Japanese war strategy included an attack on Pearl Harbor.

When a case is provable beyond reasonable doubt, it tends to stay that way. QED. People don't bother to ask (further) questions or raise skepticism, because there is no need.

Occasionally, major crimes do happen in which serious doubt remains as to the identity of the true perps. A variation is that some of the perps get caught and others get away. Sometimes people are framed, or entrapped, perhaps to protect others. Sometimes people are forced to fall on their swords to protect others higher up the totem. Sometimes crimes/events are fabricated to demonize less-than-favored individuals, or sections of society.

As in crime, the same with politics. Unfortunately, many people are naive enough to succumb to the illusion that our own politicians and democratic (?) institutions are incapable of, or unlikely to do, anything that we wouldn't. Perhaps that is because, (in theory) they are an extension of "we the people", and therefore, what they do reflects on our own character.

Here in America (alongside most countries), there is a glaring cognitive dissonance; while on the one hand, we traditionally rail about our "the @$**ing government", hows its impossible to "walk through the cesspool that is DC without getting dirty", our "ass-licking politicians", how "crooked" and "self serving" they are, their "incompetence", "lack of integrity" and a whole slew of accusations and doubts about their capability, honesty, and intent. But when accusations, or even harsh reality bites... we tend to close ranks and protect.....

It took 18 months for the media to recognize that there was a newsworthy story behind the Watergate burglary. When Daniel Ellsberg blew the whistle with the Pentagon Papers, we blasted the messenger, and protected the criminals. When it became popularly known that the country went to war against Iraq based on "testimony" from Curveball, a man who was widely known in DC to be a compulsive liar and opportunist fraud, no heads rolled. When President Johnson, the Joint Chiefs and the national media universally lied to the US people to start the war in Vietnam, ditto. Iran Contra, ditto. CIA drug running and the crack epidemic ditto. S&L Scandal. Riggs Bank. $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon. Abu Ghraib, BCCI. The huge corporate crime spree of the late 1990s and early 2000s. The Wall Street and "bankster" epidemic of corruption/embezzlement/racketeering/fraud. The list goes on and on....

Our politicians yell from our soapboxes, "lets get tough on crime"... but wait... as long as it's only people of ordinary means who face the music... we dare not hold our elites, corporate executives, military officials, politicians etc. to the same standard. We tend to close ranks to protect our institutions, and by extension individuals who hold office within those establishments. This is not just an American thing.... it happens everywhere... because it's human nature. In Germany in the 1940s, when rumors started going round about "death camps and gas ovens"... the good German people, many of whom did not approve of the Nazi Party's expansionism, would recoil in horror, citing the equivalent of today's well worn chestnut "you're a crazy conspiracy theorist"! This has become a well developed set of powerful, weasel words that that are universally coughed up to denounce skeptics... words which protect well connected criminals, words of denial, words of intellectual cowardice, and at worst, the words of traitors....

When it comes to big crime in high places, apart from the token cases that are latched onto by our controlled, unfree media to give the impression that the "system is working" (Blagojevich, Madoff.... ), the drill appears to be: "don't investigate, don't broadcast and don't punish". Our society is built on a vertical structure, ie a hierarchy, and those at the top have the means to be able to protect themselves from the consequences of wrongdoing; they have privileges, access and influence that are absolutely unavailable to folk of ordinary means. And with privilege and power, abuse happens by default... As Lord Acton was credited with saying: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Regarding Pearl Harbor: There is undeniably a large body of material and evidence which suggests complicity, prior knowledge etc. Unfortunately, the case which suggests "Pearl Harbor could have been avoided... or it was deliberately used to justify America's entry into World War II" never went to court, where witnesses were under oath and full subpoena power was employed. Had this been the case, the popular perception of history could have been very different.

When our comfort zones get ruffled, we get pissy. We like to protect our own. Sweep it under the rug, let sleeping dogs lie. This thread is another installment of that age old argument that perpetually rages between the authoritarian types... who consistently refuses to acknowledge that our "powers-that-be", either private individuals or elected/appointed officials are anything other than "angelic do-gooders whose first priorities are the interest and wellbeing of those they command or represent".... and those who doubt that assertion.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

I think you also need to look further into the economic warfare we engaged in against Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor. We put an economic stranglehold on them knowing full well they would eventually try to break it by going to war rather than submitting to our will and being dishonored.

Also, American cryptographers had already broken the Japanese naval code and knew in advance that Japanese war strategy included an attack on Pearl Harbor.

I think you also need to look further into the economic warfare we engaged in against Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor. We put an economic stranglehold on them knowing full well they would eventually try to break it by going to war rather than submitting to our will and being dishonored.

Also, American cryptographers had already broken the Japanese naval code and knew in advance that Japanese war strategy included an attack on Pearl Harbor.

Yeah... I get what you're saying here. Like I said, no smoking gun per se, but what you mention directly above here is plausible.

But check this... Would FDR have wanted a Japanese attack so they could fight in Europe? Would they not have been able to participate in fighting in Europe otherwise? Why not just get into it in Europe. By risking Japanese attack wouldn't America have to fight on two fronts, which they ended up doing... Why would FDR want this? If he wanted a piece of the Europe action he could have jumped to Britain's aid, right? Why get involved with the Japanese? Hawaii would be certainly at risk but not the US West Coast.

One interesting thing is the fleet at Hawaii. Why was it there? Why was it so big? Indeed, what happened to the security if there were codes? IIRC there were also some captured/sunk recon subs or something right?

"History
The discovery of the midget submarine confirms the account radioed to naval command at Pearl Harbor at 6:45 am on Dec. 7, 1941 . A Japanese submarine was shot through the conning tower and then depth charged trying to enter Pearl Harbor behind the USS Antares. The crew of the attacking USS Ward , an older style four stack destroyer, saw the midget sub lifted out of the water by depth charges after firing the fatal shot from its four inch side gun. The Ward's crew were Naval reservists from St. Paul, Minnesota. Unfortunately, Naval command in Pearl Harbor ignored the Ward's report and the aerial attack began at 8 am. At the Pearl Harbor investigation, some question was made of the accuracy of the Ward's report. The Ward is now vindicated. The Ward itself was later targeted by the Japanese and sunk in a kamikaze attack, ironically on Dec. 7, 1944, in the Philippines.

Questions
A number of questions still remain over this submarine, which was the first casualty in the war between the U.S. and Japan. Why did the Naval command at Pearl Harbor apparently ignore a confirmed enemy sinking right off its harbor mouth? Why did the Japanese put so much faith in the five midget submarines that they were allowed to lead the Pearl Harbor attack?"

That's actually the closest to something not being right either at the FDR administration level or the Naval Command level... The midget submarine(s) detected and sunk hours before the actual full attack.

Side Comments
<conspiracy theory>Personally, I don't think Bush Jr orchestrated 9/11 but he and selected people knew something BIG was going down. I think there were a couple of "LET'S STOP THIS BEFORE IT HAPPENS" moments where they could have done something but I think they let it slide either thinking it could never happen, or if it happened it would be good for the Bush administration and their war mongering.</conspiracy theory>

Something to consider is that before Pearl Harbor, most Americans were non-interventionists. There's no way they would support just jumping into the war in Europe, which FDR wanted to do. And there was really no way he could provoke Germany or its allies in Europe into attacking us directly and thereby gain the support of the American people to retaliate.

He saw Japan as a "back door" to entering the war in Europe. And he knew he could play the Japanese sense of honor to his advantage. He was betting they wouldn't just let the U.S. walk all over them with economic warfare and snubbing their attempts at diplomacy.

That account of the submarine attack is quite telling, as well.

There are obviously still unanswered questions, but I believe we're getting closer to the truth. Whether people want to hear the truth is another matter.

As far as 9/11...well...sammi jo is the one to talk to about that. ^_^

As far as 9/11...well...sammi jo is the one to talk to about that. ^_^

OK... here we go, again....

Those who are skeptical of the US government's 9/11 conspiracy theory don't need to posit alternatives. All one has to do is look at how the 9/11 Commission went about its work to realize that something was royally fxcked up.

Here's a partial list. There's a lot more, but the day is short and there's too much to do. No apologies for any comfort zone ruffling. Quotes by elected officials, the 9/11 Commissioners and its staff, are in bold type.

* It took the (Bush) White House 441 days, after fighting tooth and nail to prevent any investigation, to get the Commission up and running. They did everything in its power to derail the inquiry. Then, when faced with its inevitability, "the president and his aides sought to limit its scope, its access and its funding", according to the Commission's co-chairs. It was also placed under severe time constraints.

* Both 9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton haves stated publicly that the 9/11 Commission was "deliberately set up to fail" by the Bush/Cheney White House.

* John Farmer, the lead counsel to the Commission, states in his book that the greater part of the Commission's findings "are untrue". He also states: “The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation". Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... ".

*9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

* Congressman Curt Weldon: (Re. 9/11 Commission) ..."there's something very sinister going on here... something desperately wrong... This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people".

* Senator Mark Dayton, Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security: "[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission...the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence".

* Congressman Ron Paul, Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee: "...the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation".

*9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting".

*9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up",” and also “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened".

* After both President Bush and VP Cheney initially refused to testify to the Commission under oath, their testimony was secret, behind closed doors, no cameras or transcripts allowed, and no questions by reporters. Does "executive privilege" extend to this degree of obfuscation?

* This entire sordid, treacherous charade was directed by Philip Zelikow in a flagrant exhibition of conflict of interest. Zelikow, a hardline neocon Bush White House insider - an expert in how to misuse the public trust and create public myths - ran the "Commission" with an iron fist. The 9/11 Commission Report was a classic piece of dry-labbing.... an exercise in which a "study's" conclusion is prewritten and preordained, fleshed out by carefully selected material which bolsters that conclusion, while omitting that which was contrary. In the case of the 9/11 Commission, the entire government story was based on the words of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed while under torture.

** ** **

If the 9/11 attack happened exactly as claimed by the US government and the corporate media... then what was the purpose of rigging the 9/11 Commission to fail so ignominiously?

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Their words, SDW, not mine. These were people who were charged with presiding over an investigation into the worst ever crime on American soil, "with no stone left unturned"... but they got stonewalled and lied to at every turn. This inquiry was bogus, according to the majority of the Commission staff. SDW (and anyone else)... if you *must* attack someone, don't go after the messenger... try Philip Zelikow instead, who without a shadow of doubt, went out of his way to sabotage a federal investigation. Who was he answering to? Al Qaeda?

In your honest opinion, being aware that the 9/11 Commission (according to its staff) was at best "severely compromised", was this a satisfactory investigation? Or are you just going to resort to 4th grade name-calling on account of your beloved Bush Adminstration's response (re. an inquiry) being so illogical, inappropriate and downright *weird*?

If the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda personnel, then the logical extension would be that the 9/11 Commission was protecting another batch of al Qaeda personnel?

The perennial excuse of authoritarians when it comes down justifying their modus operandi, is "if you haven't broken the law, or you have nothing to hide, then what are you so afraid of? How about applying that principle to how 9/11 happened? Or Pearl Harbor? Investigating Wall Street? Or inquiring about how we went to war in Iraq? And many others....

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Their words, SDW, not mine. These were people who were charged with presiding over an investigation into the worst ever crime on American soil, "with no stone left unturned"... but they got stonewalled and lied to at every turn. This inquiry was bogus, according to the majority of the Commission staff. SDW (and anyone else)... if you *must* attack someone, don't go after the messenger... try Philip Zelikow instead, who without a shadow of doubt, went out of his way to sabotage a federal investigation. Who was he answering to? Al Qaeda?

In your honest opinion, being aware that the 9/11 Commission (according to its staff) was at best "severely compromised", was this a satisfactory investigation? Or are you just going to resort to 4th grade name-calling on account of your beloved Bush Adminstration's response (re. an inquiry) being so illogical, inappropriate and downright *weird*?

If the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda personnel, then the logical extension would be that the 9/11 Commission was protecting another batch of al Qaeda personnel?

The perennial excuse of authoritarians when it comes down justifying their modus operandi, is "if you haven't broken the law, or you have nothing to hide, then what are you so afraid of? How about applying that principle to how 9/11 happened? Or Pearl Harbor? Investigating Wall Street? Or inquiring about how we went to war in Iraq? And many others....

Of course it wasn't a satisfactory investigation. It was a disaster, and totally pointless. It was that from day one. None of that changes that we were attacked by AQ on 9/11.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

If the 9/11 attack happened exactly as claimed by the US government and the corporate media... then what was the purpose of rigging the 9/11 Commission to fail so ignominiously?

That's obvious Sammi. Nobody in Washington wanted to take the brunt of the blame for an infamous national disaster.

It's like you don't understand how Big Government works. The Republicans, Democrats and a bevy of high state officials could all have been reasonably blamed for the intelligence breakdown and the emergency response.

In particular, the Clinton admin failed to get Bin Laden when he had the chance and the Bush Admin didn't make it a priority after he was elected.

The panel was 'rigged' in the same way Canadian parliamentary panels are. By narrowly defining their scope, terms of reference and duration, while gumming up the works on the inside to ensure that a coherent message can't be deciphered by the public at the end. That's what bureaucrats do for a living.

None of that requires government complicity in the event itself. It's just how government works nowadays.

That's obvious Sammi. Nobody in Washington wanted to take the brunt of the blame for an infamous national disaster.

It's like you don't understand how Big Government works. The Republicans, Democrats and a bevy of high state officials could all have been reasonably blamed for the intelligence breakdown and the emergency response.

In particular, the Clinton admin failed to get Bin Laden when he had the chance and the Bush Admin didn't make it a priority after he was elected.

The panel was 'rigged' in the same way Canadian parliamentary panels are. By narrowly defining their scope, terms of reference and duration, while gumming up the works on the inside to ensure that a coherent message can't be deciphered by the public at the end. That's what bureaucrats do for a living.

None of that requires government complicity in the event itself. It's just how government works nowadays.

Nice try at defending the indefensible.

In other words, what you are saying, is that in order to protect certain officials from blame, the panel was pre-rigged; designed at preventing the facts from emerging.

Blame for what, though? Incompetence? We don't know. Intelligence failure? We don't know. Blame for complicity and/or foreknowledge or both? We don't know. Blame for actual involvement? We don't know..... "We don't know", because, as you admit, and as SDW has also implied, the investigation was a jury-rigged farce, not worth the paper it was written on, and that "the greater parts of its findings were untrue".

If "incompetence" or "lack of liaison" was the prevailing factor, or a contributing factor, (which again, we don't know), then the reason behind such failure could have been the very system (compartmentalization) that was designed over 50 years ago and developed since then, to enhance closed government, or secrecy within government... under the justification of 'maintaining the integrity of investigations' by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The irony....

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Ask P. Zelikow why it was such a "disaster". That was *his* responsibility. What was his motive?

How about doing the job properly, with full subpoena power, full discovery power, everyone testifies under oath, no executive privilege, no weaseling out, no nonsense?

Pointless? 3000 people get killed on our own soil, and you think that investigating it was "pointless". Holy shit.

Therefore, perhaps a proper investigation may reveal more AQ operatives and their enablers, who to this day may still be on the loose?

Stop with the mock outrage. The investigation was doomed from the beginning. It was nothing but political theater for the public. The military and intelligence communities know exactly what happened and why. Spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours told us pretty much nothing, and certainly won't bring any of those who perished back.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The outrage is no more "mock" than Philip Zelikow's perverted "sense of justice".

Quote:

The investigation was doomed from the beginning.

At least there's something we can agree on.

Quote:

It was nothing but political theater for the public.

Theater? You honestly believe that the purpose of this charade was for "entertainment" purposes? Why exactly, in the minds of those who were so guilty of derailing the 9/11 Commission, is the US public so unqualified to know happened that morning? We *PAID* that traitor Zelikow to *investigate*, and he gave us a 571-page work of fiction.

But the work of the 9/11 Commission, despite its utter phoniness, is widely regarded in Congress, the media, and by most of the blissfully unaware public... conservative and liberal, as the 'definitive accounting" of what happened.

And that is more than likely because its conclusions map very precisely onto what we wanted to believe.

Quote:

The military and intelligence communities know exactly what happened and why.

Yes. I'd bet the farm on that.

Quote:

Spending millions of dollars

The "inquiry" into the worst crime on US soil was allocated less than 25% of the cost of investigating a stain on a blue dress.

Quote:

and thousands of man hours told us pretty much nothing,

Nothing, as defined by the fact that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion relied on the words of KSM, a bunch of unreliable garbage that any competent (unbiased) judge would throw out of the courtroom, as it was extracted using torture and other methods.

Quote:

and certainly won't bring any of those who perished back.

[neocon] collateral damage[/neocon]

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.